Jump to content

Yardstick

Members
  • Content Count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

142 Excellent

About Yardstick

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

931 profile views
  1. Interesting - I use a wireless headtracker but still find it cumbersome - also end up looking a tit. Can't help but think this would be a lot easier to set up if the program ran on Win 10 and could use my PS2 webcam that is already set up for headtracking. But then again the PS2 probably doesn't have the resolution.
  2. What functions do people map to their encoders? Mine are 3 button which works nicely for a single trim axis and trim reset. However, I have 4 of them and I'm struggling to find other functions that map logically to a 3 button rotary encoder. In total across 5 controllers, I have 80 buttons, switches and hats as well as 10 axes, so have most of the functions I need already mapped. I'm now thinking more about setting things up as logically as I can with similar functions grouped together on controllers that mirror the real world equivalent as intuitively as I can make them (i.e. rotary dials mapped to rotary controllers, analogue levers to axes, switches to switches etc).
  3. I figured it was probably something like this. Doesn't really make sense from an end users perspective though. Why programme what is essentially the same function differently. Whether the trim wheel / switch is moving the whole horizontal stabiliser or a trim tab through either an electrical servo or a direct cable linkage, it all has the same effect.
  4. OK - hence the rationale for Bodenplatte I suppose. 8th AAF units in the UK followed dispersal procedures at great discomfort to the ground crews. The 56th even used authorized maintenance crews to requisition used P-47 shipping crates as makeshift shelters in the winter months. Just seems odd to me that the UK based units would follow SOP strictly when there was little to no chance of aerial attack and units on the continent where the risk was high would not.
  5. I recently bought a button box and am in the process of mapping it in various sims. It has 4 rotary encoders with push function (1 full rotation takes 20 clicks). I have been experimenting with assigning one of these as an additional elevator trim control as it gives me finer control than the 4 way hat on my cougar throttle that I use as my primary trim switch. The encoders seem to work nicely moving the axis c. 2.5% for every click. However, for some reason if I try to use them for those planes with adjustable stabilisers (109 & 190), they don't work. However, the throttle hat works fine for both elevator trim and adjustable stabilisers. Why would the encoder work with one trim function and not the other?
  6. Enjoying the missions I have completed so far - although the Tempest does feel like I've turned 'god mode' on after flying the P-47. I have one bit of feedback about how the static aircraft are placed on the home airfield. I find it very difficult to believe that the aircraft would have been lined up in parade formation beside the runway. Firstly, in the event of a burst tire, an aircraft taking off or landing, could leave the runway and carnage ensue. And, secondly, that close to the front line, aircraft would have been dispersed across the airfield (in blast pens or amongst tress). The Americans learned this the hard way at Pearl Harbor, where due to fears over sabotage, they had lined their aircraft up in close proximity thus making them very easy targets for strafing Japanese aircraft. If there are phots to the contrary then they are generally posed for the photographer.
  7. What I have noticed is very nice. A few screenies detailing the changes would be helpful if you get the time.
  8. First up congratulations to the TFS team for the steady progress that they are making in moving this sim forward. I was critical for the initial Tobruk map and they have taken that feedback onboard and made a number of improvements to the textures that have addressed many of my original concerns. However, there a few annoying bugs that I would like to draw to the team's attention. 1). Bf109 engine surging in certain missions (E and F models). For me the 'Channel dogfight even' quick mission almost always results in my engine surging inexplicably if an enemy plane is close by (usually on my six or passing head-on). Apparently this is a longstanding issue, although I never encountered it prior to installing Tobruk. 2). Guns firing after the trigger has been released. I am getting this increasing frequently with both primary and secondary guns (i.e. on separate physical triggers). The guns continue firing after the trigger is released and will only stop if the trigger is pressed and released again (I've put in probably 20 hours of flying in IL-2 BG this week, so am confident it is a CLOD issue not hardware). 3). AI P-40s using impossibly fast evasive rolling. Again in quick missions (Tobruk 'Blue Dogfight'), the AI P-40's (Tomahawks and Kitty's) will evade by barrel rolling insanely fast, completing a full rotation in about 1 sec. I'm not sure how this is even possible because I was under the impression that the AI used the same FM as the player and I sure as hell can't get the P-40 to roll like that even if I get a wing shot off!
  9. The P-47D-22 had the same issue when it was first released. I flagged it up in the bug section and it was fixed in an update. I agree that the mirrors on the Spit IX and P-51D are both angled too low - fine for doing your lippy but for spotting a bandit on your six, not so much.
  10. What about an adaptor? It could be in the form of a small extension piece. It could fit onto your grips and give them TM / Virpil compatibility - electronics / shift register board could be housed in the adaptor. I like the look of your grips but I can't justify moving away from my WarBRD or Cougar N2:NXT bases which in my mind can't be bettered for feel and precision.
  11. And we know what happens to the suggestions box ...
  12. Fantastic looking gear! Just to repeat an observation I make earlier in the thread. I think you will sell more sticks if you make them compatible with a Thrustmaster / Virpil base or at least make a hot swappable adaptor. I have a TM and Virpil base, 2 TM sticks and a KG13 stick that are all interchangeable and while I am happy to add to that, I don't want or need to invest in another base ecosystem.
  13. One of my long standing gripes has been the duration of smoke from destroyed ground targets and aircraft. If this was originally a decision made on the grounds of performance, is it not time to revisit the issue given the advances in hardware in the intervening period. I can't imagine it would be a big change (smoke duration=30secs to smoke duration=300secs?). However, it would have a massive impact on the player experience. Currently, I find I frequently re-attack a destroyed target because it the smoke / fire has gone out. It also takes away the satisfaction of leaving an area a smoking / burning mess after a successful attack. Having also put 70 or so hours into FS2020, returning to IL2:GB, it's nice to see that the clouds stack up pretty well against the former sim - particularly the layered heavy pre-sets. However, these are comparatively rare in game, so would it be worth considering the addition of more visually 'interesting' cloud pre-sets as well as increasing the depth of the layers we currently have? This sim continues to advance as improvements and tweaks are introduced over time. It strikes me that the above (enhancements to how the current effects are implemented not changes to these effects) could be introduced with comparatively little resource cost but bring a disproportionate benefit to the player experience.
  14. What are your plans for Grip connectivity? I have made considerable investment in Virpil and Thrustmaster gear (3 grips, 2 bases across both manufacturers). So, although the TM connection standard is not perfect, it is a close to a universal standard as we have.
  15. I admit that I had to go away and research this one because I have not some across a USAAF combat pilot with an enlisted man's rank before. However, there seems to be a good reason for this as there don't appear to have been any enlisted men serving as combat pilots in the USSAF after the second half of 1942. This followed the passing of the 'Flight Officer Act' in early July 1942. From Wikipedia: When Public Law 658 (Flight Officer Act) was passed on 8 July 1942 most enlisted pilots were promoted to the new rank of flight officer and newly-graduating enlisted pilots were graded as flight officers or second lieutenants depending on merit. This ended the creation of enlisted pilots in the U.S. Army. There is a good article here if any one is interested in more detail: https://www.airforcemag.com/article/0390third/#:~:text=The fact that hundreds of,aviation historians for many years.&text=Though USAAF was creating no,of them in the field. So if the pilot (either summer or winter versions) is wearing enlisted pants then that is incorrect. Pinks or coveralls (Type B-4 or later 'AN' type) would be more appropriate. That B-10 is very brown, the reason I mistook it for a leather jacket. The later war USAAF pilot's B-10 is the correct colour so not sure if the lighting used for the render is off. BTW: nice to see the pilot wearing 1943 RAF pattern escape boots and an RAF C-type helmet, as RAF kit was used extensively by US flight crew based in England.
×
×
  • Create New...